What Does it Mean to be so Angry?
I often wonder about the purpose of blogs and political discourse in general. What is it for? Even more mysterious to me is the anger and polemic predisposition to events in the world. What does it mean to be so angrily predisposed? I must admit that the most strange creature of all in these affairs is myself. These questions are not pious things I ask from a distance, but, instead, an existential dilemma I must face: Why am I so mad? Who is this person I am mad at?
Regarding the all-too-predictable sides of left and right, I find myself in a precarious position: I am something of a conservative Leftist. But the point is that this is the way I find myself. I hardly know if that is really what I wanted to be in the first place (whatever “place” that is), or if it is what is best. Nonetheless, in the heat of battle, I am not so reflective—nor should I be. After all, I see little need for hand-wringing over things that seem to demand attention like politics does.
However, the state I find myself in before or after—and certainly in-between—political discussion is usually angry in someway. Anger is not itself wrong, it may even be the kind of thing that is not anger at all. I have always disagreed with the idea that love is never angry (depending, of course, on what we mean by ‘angry’). Still, the anger I experience is confusing to me. I wonder what it means. It is a sign of my righteousness? Is it a sign of my brokeness? Does it mean that I am alive and sentient? Does it mean that I am blind to the lives of others?
I do not know the answer to those questions. And even more confounding is that the questions themselves frustrate me and make me something like what I am describing here as ‘angry.’
It angers me to be angry and not know what it means.
Now, in general, I think we can ask the same question and wonder what it means for there to be an entire, giant web of discourse—and business!—that feeds from the scraps of anger. Would Fox News and MSNBC have a viewing public without their reciprocally indoctrinated and angry viewers? To go beyond anger, what would happen if anger remained but it had more than just two predictably polemic places to reside?
I think that the mark that we so often miss—myself first and foremost—is not primarily a matter of controlling our anger but of being more imaginative with it. Politics today suffers from an extreme lack of imagination. Whether it be an authentically Leftist or conservative view—both admirable and counter-cultural (against secular liberalism) views to have in my opinion—the point is that we have neither. Much less, we lack the sheer possibility of imagining something entirely different.
Anger is here to stay, and what it means will continue to be fleeting, but here is my most vulgar and simplistic reply to my question: What it means to be angry is to suffer from the fate of feeding on the bare scraps of this lack of imagination, and in that pain to cry out in agony and settle for more scraps.
The only thing I can find to relieve this daunting state of anger is the hope that I find in the sacred absurdity of the Cross that lacks neither imagination nor possibility.
Comments are closed.
One tiny part of the answer is stress. We put ourselves in sudden stressful situations.
You’re riding on the subway, reading the newspaper. Then you take out your cell phone, turn on a game, and THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF TINY SPACESHIPS FIRING AT YOU. You have to react as quickly as possible. You blast yourself with adrenaline for a couple of minutes, then go back to the paper.
We get those little blasts all the time. TV ads used to make sense and talk about the product they were selling; now they’re half-naked girls and talking geckos. Anyway, where I’m going with this is, we do our political philosophy the same way. Tweets and bumper stickers. In order to maintain a conversation on a discussion board, you have to read the other guy’s comments and reply as quickly as possible. We don’t have time to reflect on the merit’s of the other person’s positions.
Studying political philosophy, or any philosophy, is a long and thoughtful process. But that’s not the way we conduct our political dialogue these days.
Secular liberalism is least likely to start wars or sell policies via “culture war” issues.
Being angry at expanding health care is a peculiar (and uniquely American) thing, being angry at war and injustice is a natural reaction. Venting is good – in an experiment people with their hands in ice water who were allowed to cuss were able to hold out longer than those told to remain silent – it just can turn into paralysis, a flame that consumes it- and oneself. One isn’t just angry, one is anger. It’s a fine line – acceptance of injustice is cooperation therein.
I for one am mostly baffled by this country. Jails and bombs. A dystopia cherished as the “greatest country in the world”. A financial elite suck(er)ing in people via god, guns and gays while exploiting them. The marketing is so perfect the very victims tout injustice as virtue. Driving will suffice – many a car will feature a Jesus fish, an anti-evolution sticker, a “Support Our Troops” and/or “Army Wife” and (last year) anti gay-marriage. I have yet to see “Army Widow”.
to quote the great Leonard Cohen
I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can’t stand the scene.
And I’m neither left or right
I’m just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags
that time cannot decay,
I’m junk but I’m still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
First Observation: I had a copy of the Village Voice sitting out at the office one day many years ago, and one of my Jewish co-workers picked it up to see what Alexander Cockburn had to say in his column. Cockburn was fiercely critical of Israel, and my Jewish friend said that he could not abide Cockburn and found him infuriating. Frequently when he read the column, he said, he’d go home and angrily write responses to Cockburn, and then wind up never finishing them. “But,” he said, “whenever I stumble across a copy of the Village Voice, what do I do? I go immediately to Alexander Cockburn’s column.” Moral: There is something in us that wants to get angry.
Second Observation: The PW review of Cordelia Fine’s book A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives:
Each person sees things through a very distorted lens that is favorable to himself or herself. I am guessing anger is often a defensive reaction when somebody or something challenges our preconceived notions. I find that when I make a mistake (particularly at work) I find it very difficult to accept responsibility, and almost impossible to accept sole responsibility.
It is not necessarily a good thing to see things realistically. For example, two-thirds of new businesses survive for at least two years, and only 44 percent survive at least four years. For people starting a small business to start with the attitude that, more likely than not, they will fail in four years would probably mean that a lot fewer people started small businesses.
Righteous anger often fuels people in these types of things.
People want justice; people do not have justice. Therefore, people work for justice.
Persuasion is important in the quest for justice.
Righteous anger often fuels people in these types of things.
How can anyone be sure his or her anger is righteous?
And what can we make of this?
Do we all necessarily fall short in this regard because we are sinner? Or do we all fall short because this is totally unrealistic? And if it is totally unrealistic, is it because being a Christian and being a participating member in modern society are incompatible? In order to be a Christian, is it necessary to be isolated from the modern world, like the Amish?
One of the greatest tools our enemy has in his arsenal is the pleasure we derive from anger. I have seen in many people, including myself, a seeking-out, a lust for anger, just as with the other passions. We enjoy it because it makes us feel good, it increases our heart rate, makes our minds race and our breathing faster, in other words it titillates us like filthy pictures. I know individuals for whom cultural, political, and ecclesiastical warfare is a sensual delight because it provides a pretext for wallowing in rage, and of course they are not conscious of it but you can almost see their faces light up when some discussing someone (or a party) they hate.
As David quotes above, “whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.” Most content on most blogs can be summed up with exactly those two words, “YOU FOOL!” with a few slurs and sarcastic barbs mixed in. Dangerous territory for a Christian given the stated consequences.
This thread made me dig out a book by Josef Pieper, which led me to the Summa online, which is always fun.
Anger is a passion. A passion is a good thing if it works hand in hand with reason toward an appropriate end. In the case of sexual passion, the appropiate end is marital relations. In the case of anger, the appropriate end is justice. So anger in the face of injustice is good.
Anger becomes sinful when it is blind, resentful, or bitter. If anger motivates me to do something I should, it’s good. If it drives me to crush some guy on a message board, it’s obviously wrong. Pre-internet, they used to say that if you wrote an angry letter, you should put it aside for a couple of days before you sent it, and see if it seems appropriate when you’ve calmed down. I think that’s a decent standard: if anger inspires you to do something that you feel the need to apologize for afterwards then it’s sinful.
Pinky: I’m glad we share an affinity for Pieper! I was just recently introduced to him through “Leisure: The Basis of Culture,” and I’m hoping to work through his other books if I ever have the time!
I’ve never read it, but it’s certainly highly-praised. About a year ago, I read his seven essays on the virtues, packaged as two books: ‘The Four Cardinal Virtues’ and ‘Faith – Hope – Love’. It’s the kind of reading that’s both philosophy/theology and spiritual reading. You can walk away smarter and better.